comments of sue present · charades, mobilitie was caught and cited for constructing its facilities...

January 17 2016 Marlene H Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington DC 20554

COMMENTS OF SUE PRESENT WT Docket No 16-421

re STREAMLINING DEPLOYMENT OF SMALL CELL INFRASTRUCTURE MOBILITIE LLC PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING

Madam Secretary

The outrageous assertions and behaviors of members of the wireless industry including the Petitioner Mobilitie (Petitioner) are hyperbole and they exhibit the characteristics of conniving gluttonous bullies Under the circumstances the FCC should respond with condemnation certainly not by rewarding the wireless industry with the FCCrsquos imprimatur to completely run roughshod over local communities ndash be damned the regulatory process of Local Government Units (LGUs) that protect public safety and welfare ndash as is sought through the Mobilitie Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Petition)1 I ask the FCC to look beyond the faccedilade of jaundiced industry complaints and overeager speculation including those referenced in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Public Notice (WT Docket No 16 -142) and in the Petition and to explore the reality of what has transpired in my jurisdiction Montgomery County Maryland and other LGUs throughout the nation

Sufficient time care and public processes are required by LGUs to protect public safety and welfare As was previously documented by Montgomery County to the FCC carriers and their contractors have hastily submitted dangerously inaccurate incomplete or otherwise flawed information in their rush to gain approvals and to complete wireless installations2 Montgomery County also joined with other jurisdictions to previously comment to the FCC about concerns that precipitously expediting sitings could have upon public safety and welfare The comments included discussion of how a wireless distributed antenna system (DAS) hostrsquos dreadful actions resulted in an enormous fire and devastating

1 Petition for Declaratory Ruling by Mobilitie LLC Promoting Broadband for All Americans by Prohibiting Excessive Charges for Access to Public Rights of Way (Nov 15 2016) (ldquoPetitionrdquo) 2 Reply Comments of Montgomery County MD A National Broadband Plan for Our Future GN Docket No 09-51 at iii iv 10 ndash 18 (July 21 2009)

2 consequences3 ldquoIn the 2007 Malibu Canyon Fire three utility poles snapped because they had been overloaded by the installation of a DAS system by NextG Networks [the neutral wireless host that now does business under the name Crown Castle] ldquoThe result was a fire that burned 3836 acres 36 vehicles and 14 structures (including historically significant structures) and damaged others (It also caused injuries to three firefighters)rdquo4 Investigations revealed that NextG had placed attachments on poles in direct contradiction to the safety directives that had specifically denied it permission to do so NextGrsquos attachments had overloaded poles in violation of applicable safety codes and rules and it had ldquoinstalled facilities including a fiber optic cable that were not safe in light of the condition of the pole and known local conditions (the Santa Ana winds)rdquo5

The neutral wireless hosts that are competing for wireless broadband supremacy in Montgomery Countyrsquos public rights-of-way (PROWs) are Crown Castle and Mobilitie Despite findings of the NextGCrown Castle safety violations that led to the aforementioned Malibu Canyon Fire and the resulting catastrophic damages and injuries recently it has been Mobilitie that has drawn media attention and public indignation for violations of the law and other highly questionable activities Mobilitie has been masquerading as a state-regulated utility in at least 18 states apparently to access PROWs without obtaining government permits and to elude public noticecomplaints6 Despite its charades Mobilitie was caught and cited for constructing its facilities in PROWS in my own state of Maryland and the neighboring state of Virginia without having the (safety and other) state andor LGU permits7 As the FCC has long been aware ldquo[n]ot only are unauthorized attachments a hidden cost [to state-regulated utilities and the LGUs] in the literal sense in terms of lost revenue but they as well as non-compliant attachments create additional load on the poles which can (and has) caused poles to snap Conversely for attachers they save money both in terms of rent and often avoided make readyrdquo8 ldquoUnauthorized and non-compliant attachments threaten the safety of linemen as well as

3 Comments of the City of Alexandria et al WT Docket No 13-238 at 14 ndash 15 (Feb 3 2014) Referencing M Caskey The Malibu Times CPUC Approves $515-Million Malibu Canyon Fire Settlement (Sept 24 2013) available at httpwwwmalibutimescomnewsarticle_3d62067a-2175-11e3-86b6-001a4bcf887ahtml 4 Id 5 See supra note 3 at 15 Referencing Decision Conditionally Approving the NextG Settlement Agreement Investigation on the Commissionrsquos Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Southern California Edison Company Cellco Partnership LLP dba Verizon Wireless Sprint Communications Company LP NextG Networks of California Inc and Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba ATampT California and ATampT Mobility LLC Regarding the Utility Facilities and the Canyon Fire in Malibu of October 2007 Investigation 09-01-018 (Sept 19 2013) at 10 available at httpdocscpuccagovPublishedDocsPublishedG000M077K05977059441PDF 6 See for example 1) M DeGrasse RCR Wireless News Mobilitie to Increase Transparency for Jurisdictions (May 27 2016) available at httpwwwrcrwirelesscom20160527network-infrastructuremobilitie-utility-tag4 2) Inside Towers Minnesota Utilities Warn Mobilitie About Misrepresentation (copy2017) available at httpsinsidetowerscomcell-tower-news-minnesota-utilities-warn-mobilitie-misrepresentation and 3) J Kramer Dr Jonathan L Kramer on Wireless Siting and Law Blog Let the California Utility Pole Authority Games Begin (Feb5 2016) available at httpwirelessbloglaw20160205cupa_joe 7 Id and also see for example A) Wireless Estimator One Company Fined for Not Getting a Small Cell Permit Another for Not Permitting Inspectors (Apr 4 2016) available at httpwirelessestimatorcomarticles2016one-company-fined-for-not-getting-a-small-cell-permit-another-for-not-permitting-inspectors and B) M Smith WTOP Cell Sites Installed Without Pr William Co Approval Received VDOTrsquos OK (Dec 16 2016) available at httpwtopcomprince-william-county201612cell-service-antennae-utility-poles-test-prince-william-county 8 Utilities Telecom Council Pole Attachments A White Paper at 20 (Oct 31 2007) available at httpsecfsapifccgovfile6519864708pdf

3

the general public They also undermine critical infrastructure Although utilities do not generally track statistics on pole attachment related accidents they did report numerous incidents that highlight the impact on critical infrastructure and public safetyrdquo9 Mobilitie has also been exploiting regulations and its rights to occupy PROWs by installing ldquomicro-macrordquo facilities that at 70 to 120 feet in height rival the heights of many standard macro facilities

In Montgomery Countyrsquos PROWs wireless antennas and equipment may be attached to existing or modified County streetlight poles traffic poles or the distribution poles of State-regulated utilities or they may be installed on the hostsrsquocarriersrsquo new poles The proposals for these installations deserve careful review because facilities installations and sitings in the PROW can pose safety hazards which include

bull Excessive loading on structurally inadequate poles10

bull Roadside crash hazards created by excessive loads attached to poles11

bull Obscured driverpedestrian roadway visibility12

bull Obstructed walkwaysbikeways13

bull Dangerous impediments to mobility of persons with disabilities14

bull Interference with established public private and school transportation services and routes15

bull Threats to tree health or sparksfires resulting from inadequate distance from trees limbs orplanned trees16

bull Barriers to emergency response services including fire suppression17

bull Interference with planned or established emergency communications18

bull Disruptions to public services19

bull Hazards to utility workers and workers servicing franchisee facilities that are attached to a poleor otherwise occupy the PROW20

Crown Castlersquos attachments to County streetlamp poles and wooden utility distribution poles can weigh up to 620 pounds and 636 pounds per installation respectively21 Crown Castle submitted technical applications that proposed wireless attachments on County streetlamp poles that weigh 300 lbs Those loads were determined by the County to be structurally unsafe for the existing poles and roadways The County therefore required redesigned replacement poles that would both support the

9 Id 10 Id See also supra note 3 and infra note 22 11 A Gagne Worchester Polytechnic Institute Evaluation of Utility Pole Placement and the Impact on Crash Rates (Apr 23 2008) available at httpswebwpieduPubsETDAvailableetd-043008-155826unrestrictedGagnepdf 12 Comments of the City of Tempe Arizona WT Docket No 13 - 238 at 17 ndash 19 (Mar 5 2014) 13 Id 14 Id 15 Montgomery County (MD) Public Hearing on ZTA 16-05 (Jul 19 2016) S Present ~ at min 002300 available at (httpmontgomerycountymdgranicuscomMediaPlayerphpview_id=136ampclip_id=12000 ) 16 Id See also supra note 3 17 See supra note 12 18 See infra note 37 19 See supra note 12 20 See supra note 8 21 See the attached excerpt Exhibit B of the NextG Networks Atlantic Inc franchise agreement The agreement was adopted by Resolution 15-1335 on February 14 2006

Sue
File Attachment
Mont_Co_NextG_ExB_FranchiseAgreementpdf

4 loads and ldquobreakawayrdquo in the event of collision22 As a result the applicant(s) paused the ldquoshot clockrdquo to collaborate with the County on replacement designs that would sustain Crown Castlersquos and its tenantsrsquo loads and comply with applicable safety codes protect the public and serve the host and its tenantsrsquo needs23 Other Crown Castle technical applications document that PEPCO the regulated investor-owned utility (IOU) has been unable to accommodate the substantial loads of the wireless attachments at some proposed sites As a result PEPCO is instead installing new non-essential utility poles mid-span between existing utility poles along the roadway for Crown Castle to install wireless facilities24 Wooden utility distribution poles do not breakaway upon impact in a collision25 Highway safety studies report that increasing the number of utility poles along roadways as well as increasing pole girththickness contributes to our nationrsquos injuries and fatalities26 Wireless attachments that have already been approved and attached to wooden utility distribution poles along the PROWs of winding two-lane State highways serve multimodal transportation vehicles of all types and sizes share the roads with cyclists as well as pedestrians who walk along the shoulders of the roadways because there are no sidewalks This includes children who walk to and from school (sometimes in the dark) An FCC ruleorder that would further expedite the wireless attachments would without a doubt adversely affect highway safety

In its quest for unfettered access to the PROWs the Petitioner attempts to equate wireless commercial broadband services to the ldquoessential servicesrdquo of a regulated public utility27 The Petitioner additionally asserts its need for FCC action to further the congressional mandate for FirstNet28 However Mobilitiersquos requests for FCC intervention are subterfuges In Montgomery County the recent spike in applications submitted by Mobilitie Crown Castle and their wireless carrier tenants are ldquocreamingrdquo or ldquocherry pickingrdquo select geographic areas to provide enhanced wireless broadband coverage while at the same time failing to provide even minimal levels of wireless broadband service to other geographic areas in the County29 Nothing either in the publicly available applications that have been recently submitted by these hosts and their tenant carriers or in the hostsrsquo franchise agreements with the County to occupy the PROWs suggests any interest or plans to meet the basic standard of a state-regulated utility to serve all consumers in their service territory30 Mobilitie also does not demonstrate to the FCC that its commercial wireless broadband service is either provided or contemplated to serve residential consumers throughout all its service territories Obviously wireless broadband service does not rise to the caliber of an ldquoessential public servicerdquo otherwise the Petitioner and its industry would

22 Montgomery County Council Planning Housing and Economic Development (PHED) Committee Worksession (ldquoPHED Worksessionrdquo) Item 7 ZTA 16-05 ~ at min 001000 to 020416 (September 12 2016) available at httpmontgomerycountymdgranicuscomMediaPlayerphpview_id=136ampclip_id=12166 M Williams ~at min 003900 ndash 004000 23 Id M Williams ~ at min 005600 ndash 005700 24 See for example the attached TFCG ReportRecommendation re application 201601-15 for node NPE-033 The application proposes installing a new mid-span wooden distribution pole DAS antennas and equipment 25 See supra note 22 J Zyontz ~at min 010200 26 See supra note 11 27 Petition at 2 28 Petition at 5 ndash 6 29 See Tower Committee map displaying ldquo2016 Applications for DAS and lsquoSmall Cellsrsquordquo (httpsgis3montgomerycountymdgovWirelessApplications ) 30 See infra note 43

Sue
File Attachment
TC201601_15_ReportRecommendationpdf

5 be ensuring that all consumers in their service territories were equipped with adequate coverage31 Further undermining the Petitionerrsquos assertions not a single member of the wireless industry is on public record as having plans to provide coverage to all residents or all properties throughout its local service territory to support Countywide coverage for FirstNet (emergency responder communication) In Montgomery County the industryrsquos plans are to densifyenhance areas that currently have superior connectivity while approximately one third of the County remains either with inadequate connectivity or has none at all32 This disparity in connectivity is predominantly a problem in the area referred to as the Ag(ricultural) Reserve where Census data show a disproportionately large percentage of the Countyrsquos older residents are located33 A FirstNet system that ignores segments of our County especially its aging population is a system that is for all intents and purposes broken from the start As the Petition notes ldquoCongress created FirstNet in the 2012 Spectrum Act to provide a comprehensive state of the art national wireless network for the nationrsquos public safety agencies34 Has Mobilitie in its Petition been overtaken by enthusiasm to persuade the FCC to act and inadvertently exaggerated the commercial wireless industryrsquos abilities to support FirstNet Or is this a sleight of hand The current technology that is being installed by Mobilitie Crown Castle and its tenants is commercial 4G LTE at best ldquoUnfortunately commercial LTE networks simply arenrsquot built to the reliability standards required by first responders so while the technology exists and is used today by the public it cannot be whole-heartedly adopted by first respondersldquo35 There is extensive speculation ndash just speculation ndash about 5G technology Despite all the hype the future upgrade to 5G isnrsquot really expected to remedy the commercial networksrsquo reliability problems ldquoSpurred by high-profile public safety communications failures during 911 and Hurricane Katrina and recognizing that commercial networks would never meet the reliability standards needed by first responders Congress passed a law creating lsquoFirstNetrsquo a project to build a dedicated LTE network for first respondersrdquo36 For LGUs to effectively embark on this critical challenge it is essential that sufficient review processes take place to ensure that commercial facilities are sited at proximities that will not disrupt or otherwise interfere with planned or installed public safety communications networks As a Verizon expert explained during an LGU hearing co-locations at DAS node sites will diminish transmission capabilities37

31 See supra note 27 32 See supra note 21 M Herrera ~at min 012920 ndash 013035 33 Id and see Ag Reserve census data at httpwwwmontgomerycountymdgovriceResourcesFilesAgreservepdf 34 See supra note 27 35 B Yelin and C Webster The University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security Blog Public Safety Interoperability Challenges Remain ndash Why We Need FirstNet (January 22 2015) (httpwwwmdchhscompublic-safety-interoperability-challenges-remain-why-we-need-firstnet ) (emphasis added) Note Law and Policy Analysts Ben Yelin and Christopher Webster are identified at this publication site as two of the five members tapped to develop and staff a Maryland FirstNet Broadband Team for the Maryland Statewide Interoperability Office 36 Id (emphasis added) 37A Martins CentralJerseycom Hillsborough Verizon Wireless Expert Grilled During Cell Tower Hearing (Sept 22 2016) At a variance hearing in Hillsborough Twsp NJ the applicantrsquos expert Verizon radio frequency engineer David Stern answered questioned about installing DAS in a neighborhood instead of a monopoleldquolsquo What limits the coverage of the DAS is the power amplifiers that they put in the (attached equipment)rdquo he said ldquoEvery time you add another carrier to that same DAS

6 Montgomery County and the DC Metropolitan Area continue to struggle with wireless 911 failures For example on August 16 2016 Sprintrsquos emergency backup power supply was depleted of fuel leaving residents of the metropolitan area in Maryland Virginia and Washington DC without 911 cell service for days38 ldquo[Tony Rose Chairman of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governmentsrsquo 911 Committee and Chief of Public Safety Communications and 911 in Charles County] said lsquoItrsquos going to happen again therersquos no question about itrsquoldquo39 As a result Montgomery County and other LGUs in are expending resources to prepare and compensate for these anticipated wireless industry emergency communications mishaps40 Staff reported to the County Councilrsquos PHED Committee that the County had recently experienced an unprecedented volume of wireless applications and anticipates substantial further increases in volume within the fiscal year In response to questions from CouncilmemberCommittee member Leventhal staff indicated that the volume of applications received by Montgomery County far exceeded the application volumes being experienced by comparable jurisdictions in the metropolitan area Councilmember Leventhal reacted with surprise skepticism and suspicion to the information that bothall of the hosts serving our County were in essence simultaneously and aggressively seeking wireless PROW sitings but that they were not doing the same in comparable neighboring counties41 I urge the FCC to explore tell-tale signs of wireless industry collusion and to refer these matters to appropriate investigative agencies Petitioner Mobilitie complains of delays and discrimination These complaints are absurd Mobilitie and its fellow industry members are not the victims of discrimination if anything they are the perpetrators in Montgomery County and throughout the nation Evidently after masquerading as a state-regulated utility in at least eighteen states Mobilitie has managed to deceive itself42 Why would it otherwise assert to the FCC that it deserves the favorable treatment given to state-regulated utilities asserting that it provides an ldquoessential public servicerdquo on par with the incumbent telephone companies and IOU electric companies that occupy the PROWs43 Though Mobilitie seeks the benefits of being state-regulated utilities it and other wireless industry members eschew being saddled with the kind of responsibilities or regulations that govern state-regulated utilities44 In seeking only the benefits and

node and you split it you cut the power in half so automatically the coverage that you got from that site shrinks up and each time you do that it shrinks some morersquordquo Thus the article concludes rsquothe only way to combat such a reduction would be to construct additional DAS nodesrsquo Find the complete article at (httpwwwcentraljerseycomnewshillsborough-verizon-wireless-expert-grilled-during-cell-tower-hearingarticle_e2b66d88-8107-11e6-a884-4343c32456e0html ) 38 V St Martin Washington Postcom Sprint Emergency Generators Ran Out of Fuel Cutting Off 911 Cell Service (Sept 24 2016) available at httpswwwwashingtonpostcomlocalpublic-safetysprint-emergency-generators-ran-out-of-fuel-cutting-off-911-cell-service201609241cd23f20-7ecd-11e6-8d13-d7c704ef9fd9_storyhtmlutm_term=8dee201601a2 39 Id 40 Id 41 See supra note 22 G Leventhal ~ at min 004200 ndash 005100 42 See supra note 7 43 Petition at 2 44 See for example sect 2113 of the Public Utilities Companies Article of the Maryland Code which in part states ldquo(a)(1) The [Maryland Public Service] Commission shall (i) supervise and regulate public service companies subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission to

7 skirting the responsibilities of a regulated public utility the wireless industry does not seek a level playing field it seeks undue preferential treatment Montgomery County has demonstrated its continued interest in seeking to address the industryrsquos growing demands for access and speed However it is imperative that any County response to the industry be balanced and constrained and that it not have the effect of sacrificing public safety and welfare In residential and other more sensitive PROW areas community members are often the in the best position to notice the potential hazards or excessive adverse impacts of proposed wireless sitings as they might relate to unique visual obstructions local terrain hazards and applicant errors that might escape County officialsrsquo radar States andor LGUs must have the latitude to conduct public reviews particularly for those sites that deserve extra care whether to protect aesthetics sensitive environmental features or to preserve community character

Over the years Montgomery Countyrsquos affected residents have been instrumental in identifying a wide range of issues that had escaped public officialsrsquo timely detection For example affected residents

bull Provided notice that DAS node applications that were slated for votes by the Tower Committee and which had completed Tower Coordinator engineering reviews and received favorable recommendations were sites in the PROWS of the City of Gaithersburg an incorporated municipality that makes independent decisions on land use matters45

bull Documented that the proposed location for a wireless site would disrupt grading in close proximity to an earthen dam that retains manmade ponds and as a result would likely produce the flooding of nearby homes and public streets46

bull Demonstrated that engineering plans which were part of a carrierrsquos petition for a special exception and the carrierrsquos exhibits introduced at a public hearing had been altered and falsely represented the proposed wireless facility location and the distances from off-site dwellings47

1 Ensure their operation in the interest of the public and 2 Promote adequate economical and efficient delivery of utility services in the State without unjust

discrimination and (ii) enforce compliance with the requirements of law by public service companies including requirements with

respect to financial condition capitalization franchises plant manner of operation rates and servicerdquo 45 Aaron Rosenzweig sent e-mail messages to multiple Montgomery County and City of Gaithersburg officials alerting them that items 55 and 61 on the October 5 2016 (Transmission) Transmission Facilities Communications Group (Tower Committee) agenda concerned applications at properties located within the Gaithersburg city limits and were therefore ineligible for Tower Committee action (Sept 30 2016) The October 5 2016 Tower Committee agenda is available at httpwwwmontgomerycountymdgovcableResourcesFilesTowersagendas201610-5-16_agenda20FINALpdf 46 John Placanica of the Forest Estates Community Association sent e-mail messages to Mark Etheridge of the Department of Permitting Services and to Amy Stevens Mary Travaglini and Julia Liu of the Department of Environmental Protection He alerted County staff that hazards of the proposed development and transmission facility at the Sligo Baptist Church posed upon the Denis Avenue retention ponds (Sept 25 2014) 47 Philip J Tierney Special Exception Report and Recommendation S-2709 In the Matter of T-Mobile LLC and West Hillandale Swim Club Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings (OZAH) Montgomery County Maryland at 27 ndash 31 (Oct 28 2010) attached

BEFORE THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS

OFFICE OF ZONING AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS Stella B Werner Council Office Building

Rockville Maryland 20850(240) 777-6660

IN THE MATTER OF

T-MOBILE NORTHEAST LLC (T-Mobile) AND WEST HILLANDALE SWIM CLUB (Hillandale)

PETITIONERS Matthew Chaney James Clayton Hankinson Dr Judith Harrison Brian C Morgan Randy Gene Ogg

In Support of the Petition

Edward Donohue Esquire Attorney for the Petitioners

Board of Appeals Case No 2709GOVERNMENT WITNESSES

Thomas Carlin Montgomery County Gov t (OZAH No 08-06)Department of Permitting Services (DPS) Site Enforcement Section (SES) Ehsan Motazedi DPS SES Manager

Neither in Support nor in Opposition

Gretchen Gervase Susan Present Richard Present Ida Rubin Doris Stelle Emma Stelle

In Opposition to the Petition

Before Philip J Tierney Hearing Examiner

HEARING EXAMINERS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON REMAND

S-2709 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Summary 3

II Statement of the Case 4

III Summary of Testimony 8A Petitioners Case in Chief 8B Montgomery County DPS 18C Community Case in Chief 19D Petitioners Rebuttal 24

IV Findings of Fact and Conclusions 24A Background 24B Need for Cell Tower 26C Petitioners Credibility Problem 27

D Board s Requirements 31

1 Visual impact on Neighborhood 31

2 Battery Safety 37

3 Smaller Equipment Compound 38

4 Landscape Plan 39a Gate 39b Additional Plantings 40c Specifications of Plantings 41d Commitment on Tree Maintenance 41e Commitment on Proposed Word 42f Commitment to Compound Adjusted Location 42

5 Floodlights Illumination and Glare 42

6 Inconsistent Setback 43

7 County Hazardous Materials Storage 44

8 Battery Degradation 44

9 Swimming Pool Standards 44

V Recommendations 45

S-2709 Page 3

I SUMMARY

This case is on review after remand from the Board of Appeals The Petitioners

have had over two years to pull together a coherent presentation of their case Yet the

latest effort is well short of the mark

Several of the Petitioners witnesses were unfamiliar or uninformed about the

details of the project This information gap was due to the absence of the initial project

manager Marianna Crampton who was on maternity leave and could not testify at the

scheduled hearing dates Instead of delaying the hearing until Ms Crampton could

return the Petitioners called as witnesses people who were inexperienced in County

land use hearings or uniformed about the project detail All too often their response to

questions was I don t know The evidence was in conflict inconsistent or incomplete

on several important points

One particular problem related to conflicts and inconsistency with the Petitioners

own documents over the 300 foot setback requirement An aerial photo depicted two

homes within the prohibited setback area and this evidence was in conflict with the site

plan which reflected conformity with the 300 foot setback requirement The Petitioners

failed to withdraw erroneous documents and compounded the problem with stubborn

insistence that incorrect measurements were correct One of the Petitioners witnesses

withheld information that was eventually disclosed by the interrogation of Hearing

Examiner Carrier and Susan Present The conflict and inconsistency in the Petitioners

evidence caused a continuing problem of credibility for the Petitioners

The Petitioners did revise the site plan to add more vegetation and trees and

filed a revised landscape plan to improve compatibility with the community However

the Petitioners never cleared up the conflict over the 300 foot setback Another major

S-2709 Page 4

omission was the lack of information about the contractor proposed to monitor and

eliminate the risks of lead acid batteries as backup for the cell phone system

On Balance the Petitioners presented a case that was fraught with lack of

information misinformation lack of preparation and misunderstanding about the need to

supply the decision maker with sufficient evidence to resolve conflicts in the record

Since the Petitioners failed to provide a record that satisfies the burdens of proof

and persuasion they must deal with the consequences of the failed presentation The

recommendation to the Board of Appeals is to deny the petition The Petitioners had

ample time and opportunity to clear the record but did not do so That they failed to do

so is grounds for denial and denial is my primary recommendation

If the Board is reluctant to deny the application because of the need for

expanded service another remand is an option While a remand would seem unfair to

the community at this juncture and is not my recommendation it will allow the Petitioners

another opportunity to fill the evidentiary gaps present in the current case It will

certainly give them more time to study and supplement its evidence on lead acid battery

safety and correct the mistakes in Petitioners documents and present a clear

presentation that meets the zoning requirements

II STATEMENT OF THE CASE

An application for a special exception for a freestanding telecommunications

tower to be located at 915 Schindler Drive in Silver Spring was filed by the Petitioners

and included a request that the property line setback adjacent to the Cresthaven School

be reduced from 120 feet to 41 feet The matter was referred to the Maryland National

Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) Following Technical Staff review and

Planning Board hearing the application was recommended for approval with conditions

S-2709 Page 5

The Board of Appeals authorized the Hearing Examiner to conduct two days of hearings

in January and February 2008

Hearing Examiner Carrier submitted her Report and Recommendation dated

June 2 2008 which was transmitted to the Board of Appeals and the parties of record

on the same date The administrative record was returned to the Board for further

action In her 141 page report Hearing Examiner Carrier made extensive findings and

conclusions and recommended denial of petition based on the failure of the Petitioners

to present sufficient evidence on several critical issues

The Board of Appeals heard oral argument on the petition on September 17

2008 On January 8 2009 the Board concluded as did Hearing Examiner Carrier that

the record does not contain sufficient evidence to grant the petition The Board

remanded the matter to the Hearing Examiner Carrier to receive additional testimony

and evidence on nine enumerated topics and six subtopics

1 Petitioners must submit sufficient evidence to show that the support structureas proposed on the site will minimize its visual impact to the greatest degreereasonably possible

2 Petitioners must submit written information sufficient to show that theproposed array of back up batteries will not pose a safety risk to thecommunity that justifies denial of the petition

3 Petitioners must submit a persuasive explanation of why the equipmentcompound cannot be further reduced in size to lessen its visual impact

4 Petitioners must submit a revised Landscape Plan that includes the followingfeatures

a The gate is located on the Ruppert Road side of the compoundb Plantings are adequate to fully screen the compound on all sides except

for the gate and the side facing exiting forest (unless it is demonstratedthat additional planting along the Ruppert Road side would be damagingto the large tree currently growing within a few feet of the proposedcompound location

c A specified minimum height at planting and expected maximum heightand spread after two five and ten years

S-2709 Page 6

d T-Mobile s commitment to provide for the maintenance of these trees and replacements for any that die for as long as the tower or the equipmentcompound is located on the site

e T-Mobile s commitment to ensure that all tree-related work is performedby a certified arborist or licensed tree professional and

f T-Mobil s commitment to adjust the location of the compound fence andlandscaping as needed to preserve community access to the pathcurrently used by children walking to the adjacent elementary school

5 Petitioners must submit written information sufficient to allow the Board toassess whether the proposed floodlights would cause any objectionableillumination or glare or result in lighting levels exceeding 01 foot-candlesalong the side and rear lot lines

6 Petitioners must submit written information sufficient to explain theinconsistency between the site plan Ex 155(a) and the aerial photographEx 155 (d) and to demonstrate that the 300-setback requirement would besatisfied

7 Petitioners must submit written evidence that T-Mobile intends to comply withMontgomery County s Hazardous Material Storage registration requirementas they relate to the subject property or has received approval from theCounty for an exemption from such compliance

8 The Board also asks the Hearing Examiner to inquire into the conditionsunder which batteries such as proposed for this special exception woulddegrade and

9 The Board asks the Hearing Examiner to address specific standards in theCode for community swimming pools or explain her position that she andthe Board are not required to consider them Ex 170 January 8 2009

The Board made its remand order effective on January 8 2009 Hearing

Examiner Carrier scheduled remand hearings for March 12 and 15 2010 For

administrative reasons the hearings were rescheduled to March 9 and March 16 2010

The March 9 2010 hearing was convened as scheduled The March 16 2010 was

rescheduled and conducted on April 8 2010 Evidence was presented at the hearing

both for and against the application

The hearing record was initially closed on April 30 2010 However Hearing

Examiner Carrier was appointed to a new position Chair of the Montgomery County

Planning Board which made it impossible for her to complete the report and

S-2709 Page 7

recommendation There were several orders issued extending the time for the Hearing

Examiner s report and recommendation During this time a new Hearing Examiner was

appointed with instructions to review the entire record and prepare a supplemental report

and recommendation for the Board of Appeals An extension of time was granted for the

supplemental report and recommendation to be filed by October 31 2010

The Board s remand order specifies issues to be resolved but evidently accepts

Hearing Examiner s Carrier s findings and conclusions on other issues that are not

specified for review After review of record this Hearing Examiner concludes that it is not

necessary to repeat all the material of the original hearings or the original Hearing

Examiner s report and recommendation Instead Hearing Examiner Carrier s June 2

2008 report and recommendation is hereby incorporated by reference into this

supplemental report and recommendation and made a part of it

Unless otherwise stated the findings and conclusions of Hearing Examiner

Carrier will be adopted here The focus of this report will be confined to the testimony

and evidence submitted after the remand and the Board s instructions for evaluation of

enumerated issues contained in the remand order

One issue was raised by the Opposition that was not specified for remand

evaluation by the Board of Appeals The Opposition presented evidence to show that

the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) adopted a policy relating to mortgage lending

that views the presence of a cell tower in the neighborhood as a hazard and nuisance

and a negative factor in obtaining a government backed mortgage1 The Petitioners

objected to consideration if this issue on the grounds that the Board did not specify

property values as an issue to be considered during remand

1 U S Department of Housing and Urban Development Ex 172 (b)

S-2709 Page 8

The FHA policy may apply to this neighborhood and raises questions about the

relevancy of the federal policy in a local use matter These questions involve legal

matters that are better handled with an opinion from the County Attorney or the Attorney

General Given the importance of telecommunications and preservation of property

values as competing policy factors it seems prudent to refer this matter for a legal

opinion if the matter is remanded again Because the Board did not specify this issue to

be considered it is not included in this report

III SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY

All testimony was presented under oath In order to accommodate witnesses

schedules Hearing Examiner Carrier permitted some testimony out of turn For the

convenience of the reader the witness testimony is grouped as testimony in support of

the Petitioners testimony from Montgomery County Government DPS representatives

the testimony of the Opposition and Petitioners Rebuttal

A PETITIONERS CASE IN CHIEF

Matthew Chaney is the Zoning Manager for T-Mobile coverage and is the

responsible official for finding a solution to the coverage problem that has gone on since

2007 He testified that the Tower Committee determined that this deficiency can only be

rectified with additional coverage The level of dropped and blocked calls has increased

to a point that threatens the 911 emergency communications system

Mr Chaney acknowledged that one of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance

sect59-G-258 specifies that support structures for the tower must be sited to minimize its

visual impact and the Board may require that the structure to be less visibly intrusive

include mitigation such as screening coloration stealth design and other options He

S-2709 Page 9

proceeded to evaluate the issues raised by the Board of Appeals and concluded that the

Petitioners have satisfied each and every requirement raised by the Board and the

application in its current form is responsive to the Board s direction

Mr Chaney concluded that the facility will be screened from the surrounding area

on multiple sides For example existing tall trees and vegetation are located on the

north and will be retained All antennas and cable lines will be concealed inside the

tower which is designed to look like a flag pole The height of the tower is proposed at

120 feet An 8 foot tall board on board fence will surround the compound that will

include the tower and facility equipment

Mr Chaney indicated that the facility will be situated so that it is at least 300 feet

from nearby residences The area outside the fence will be landscaped with additional

trees and vegetation that will make it difficult to see the fence Located immediately

south of the site is the existing Oakview2 swimming pool and community area The

existing pool is enclosed with a chain link fence and it will be more visible to the

surrounding residents than the proposed facility He explained that a propagation map

shows the gaps in coverage He indicated that there are no other sites available that

would provide a solution to the coverage gap

Mr Chaney testified that Barbara Moore the Director of the County s Office of

Emergency Management has reviewed the proposed application and concluded that it

conforms to the requirements of Executive Regulation 17-03 T-Mobile had initially

challenged the applicability of the regulation However the Petitioner has since reached

a settlement agreement and registered all existing facilities within the County including

the proposed facility

2 The witness appears to have confused the Oakview pool with the Hillandale pool whichis contiguous to the site of the proposed facility

S-2709 0

Mr Chaney addressed the proposal to relocate the facility to the rear of the site

The relocation of the tower northeast of the pool would require considerable ground

disturbance and removal of trees Grading alone would level out the area and remove

natural screening of topography and vegetation He noted that the equipment

compound was reduced in size from 35 by 45 feet to 30 by 30 feet Some compounds

are larger than the Petitioners proposal Some are 75 feet by 75 feet and are designed

for 5 or 6 carriers

Mr Chaney explained that the revision of the site plan does not propose to

relocate the gate access to Ruppert Road because large trees would be lost if gate is

moved there He indicated that the gate will be constructed of the same materials as the

fence that is an 8 foot high board on board A 12 foot wide and 20 to 25 feet long

gravel path will extend from the paved parking lot to the gate to permit vehicular access

to the tower and compound The Petitioner also proposes to plant 8 trees instead of the

original proposal of 5 trees He indicated that T-Mobile will commit to adjust the location

of the compound fence and landscaping needed to preserve community access to the

path adjacent to the site and the Cresthaven Elementary School However he does not

believe it is appropriate to encourage people to go through the site Nevertheless the

Petitioner will abide by the Hearing Examiner s determination on this issue3 The

proposed compound does not block access to the school or pool The school was

designed so there will be no cut-through access to the school

Mr Chaney was subjected to extensive cross examination by several members

of the opposition The reduction in the size in the compound was intended to be

3 Hearing Examiner Carrier made clear to the Petitioners that her responsibility did notinclude proposing any adjustments to the site plan as that is the responsibility of the Petitionerswho carry the burdens of proof and persuasion for a special exception request

S-2709 Page 11

responsive to the Board s remand order However he did not know what would be the

smallest compound that would work on the site and did not know the details of T-

Mobile s instructions to its contractor KCI There were many questions he could not

answer His lack of knowledge about the details of the proposal decrease the weight

given to his general conclusions about compliance with the zoning requirements

Mr Chaney was questioned about the proposed tower or pole which will

resemble a flag pole although it will not contain a flag Co-locaters at the site could fit

into the flag pole but he did not know its width He defended the flag pole as preferable

to a pole disguised as a tree because it will look good at the site He conceded that the

pole at 120 feet in height will tower over existing trees and will be visible to neighbors

When the gate is open there will be no screening of the compound its on-site

equipment or the tower All will be visible to homes along Schindler Road

Mr Chaney indicated that contractor or T-Mobile operational personnel would

visit the compound on a monthly basis and the gate would be opened for an unknown

periods of time He indicated that the equipment compound will contain batteries stored

in three cabinets There would be four batteries per cabinet However he conceded that

a fourth cabinet may be installed for capacity reasons although there are no current

plans for more battery backup units Other testimony from Petitioners witnesses

indicates that there will be at least 16 batteries or more

Mr Chaney testified that T-Mobile will provide for monitoring and safety of the

facility The monitoring and maintenance will be performed on a 30 to 45 day cycle T-

Mobile s operational personnel or its contractor will visit and inspect the site its

equipment and its operations Whenever there is a malfunction or an emergency T-

S-2709 Page 12

Mobile will respond and correct the problem If there are co-locators on site they will be

responsible for their own equipment and operations

The Opposition cross examination of Mr Chaney brought out the following

points ENCELL Technologies LLC (ENCELL) is the manufacturer of the Sentinel

system which the Petitioners claim will eliminate any safety concerns about the

batteries ENCELL does not have a contract with T-Mobile and it is only under

consideration as a contractor ENCELL only installed its product at one location in the

region Richmond Virginia ENCELL does not have a web site or written evaluations of

the product including its Richmond facility ENCELL s product has only been in

production for one year

Randy Gene Ogg qualified as an expert witness in the field of batteries as

applied to cellular facilities He is Chief Technical Officer at ENCELL He is familiar with

batteries to be used at the Hillandale facility He concluded that the proposed array of

batteries will not pose a safety risk to the community The proposed facility is a standard

setup similar to many around the country

Mr Ogg testified that a safety risk relates to the lead acid sealed batteries

proposed for use at the site When batteries proposed here develop resistance while

they are on constant float the condition will generate internal heat and pressure buildup

He concluded that the proposed internal safety system developed by his employer

ENCELL will maintain the safety of the system and extend the life of the batteries

because they will be removed from constant charge and heat will be reduced The

battery state of health will be kept at constant level and remove risk situations

Mr Ogg indicated that the ENCELL safety system is called Sentinel Sentinel

will monitor the batteries determine their state of health and extend the life of the

S-2709 Page 13

batteries because it will protect the system from constant charge and reduces heat

within the system Sentinel is the only product to evaluate the battery state of health

Sentinel is automatic but can be monitored at remote locations

Mr Ogg addressed the Board s concern about the degradation of the batteries

One of main benefits of Sentinel is the reduction of degradation Normally batteries

degrade in 2 to 3 years However under Sentinel battery life span can be extended up

to two or three times normal Sentinel itself has a life span of 12 years

Mr Ogg explained that batteries are in a static state when in constant float and

sulfate buildup will occur on surface of electrodes and create resistance points Swelling

occurs By taking batteries off float charge it is no longer in a static state and is allowed

to adjust down for 23 hours and a post charge clean up will return the batteries to a low

resistance state He concluded that Sentinel should eliminate all the currently known

factors that cause safety issues The system is shown on Ex 171 (o)

Dr Judith Harrison is a scientist who lives in the neighborhood and supports the

proposed use She is a member of the Board of Directors for the West Hillandale Swim

Club She explained that a float charge means that batteries are held in a constant

state of charge usually 100 and can be held at any point The most common time for

lead acid battery failure is during a float charge

Dr Harrison explained that lead acid batteries are extensively used in

telecommunications facilities as backup in case the main power source is not available

They are used in many applications worldwide She provided a review of the use of

these batteries in her report Ex 181 These batteries are safe and they are used in

1500 T-Mobile telecommunications facilities located in the Washington DC

Metropolitan area These batteries are also used in 155 T-Mobile facilities in

S-2709 Page 14

Montgomery County The batteries are heavily used in automobiles and the failure rate

is exceptionally low

Dr Harrison indicated that the use of Sentinel removes the battery from constant

float Sentinel monitors the health of the battery by monitoring internal resistance

Sentinel removes even the small risk of failure Based on her 17 years of experience

she concluded that the lead acid battery does not pose an unacceptable safety risk and

Sentinel provides further assurance that the batteries are safe

Dr Harrison explained that there is a need for the facility in this area of the

county All T-Mobile facilities are compliant with Executive Regulation 1703 The Tower

Committee and the MNCPPC both indicated the need for the facility Dropped calls

have increased and 911 calls are at risk The monopole is designed to withstand 90

mph winds If the pole should break during a storm only the top 3925 feet will drop

within a designated fall area The Cresthaven School is 135 feet from the Tower

Dr Harrison concluded that the proposed use of Foster s Holly trees will be ideal

screening for the compound The Petitioners evidence meets the Board s concerns as

the compound area will be significantly reduced in size and additional screening will

provide a satisfactory buffer see photos Exs 240 241 and 244 She also agreed with

the Petitioners evidence that there is no better site for the facility The selected site will

cause less ground disturbance to the environment For example the location of an

alternative access road next to the pool is a bad idea as it will render the pool useless

Moreover construction vehicles driving over the patio will break its foundation stones

James Clayton Hankinson is an engineer and program manager for KCI

Technologies Inc (KCI) which is T-Mobile s contractor He was qualified as an expert

witness He explained the differences between the two site plans prepared for the

S-2709 Page 15

hearings of March 9 2008 Ex 171 (p) and April 8 2009 Ex 217 (c) The model

numbers have changed as the previous models are no longer manufactured He stated

that ground access will only be 25 feet from the parking lot and it is necessary to allow

access for maintenance vehicles and transport of equipment

Mr Hankinson explained that the project documents Ex 217 (a-s) show that

light at the property line will not exceed 01 foot candles Lights will be located facing

down and at cabinets mounted six feet in air The lights will only be turned on in the

event of a nighttime emergency The lights will not cause glare and will not extend

beyond the property line He also concluded that the proposed tower location is 300 feet

from off-site dwellings He agrees with the DPS witnesses that sealed drawings are the

most probative evidence of setbacks

Mr Hankinson on cross examination stated that it is inaccurate to claim that

further tower survey work was done to verify the 300 foot setback tr of April 8 2010 p

83 He conceded that to meet the 300 foot setback the tower was shifted slightly or

moved in a northeast direction couple of feet The tower has the same GPS location

for both site plans Property lines were also changed between the April 8 2010 and the

March 9 2010 hearings He conceded that he has only been involved in the project for

the past 3 weeks tr of April 8 2010 p 27 as he replaced a woman who is on maternity

leave

Mr Hankinson testified that the diameter of the tower at its base is 4066 inches4

and 30 inches at the top He indicated that the cabinets where the batteries and

4 Tr March 9 2010 pp 257-258 He later testified that the outside diameter of the pole is2033 inches or exactly half of the stated diameter tr April 8 2010 p 118 lines 10-17

S-2709 Page 16

equipment will be stored will be 8 inches wide 23 inches long and space between

cabinets will be 2 feet 2 inches There will be no change in the natural grade The new

site plan and landscape plan reflect a reduction in the size of the compound The

compound forms a rough rectangle

Mr Hankinson was questioned extensively by the opposition He conceded that

he does not know the GPS location of the tower An aerial photo was used to estimate

the tower location and the 300 foot setback He also conceded that several homes have

rectangular shapes on the site plan but in reality more homes than reflected on the site

plan are irregular in shape Ex 231 photo of Lev-Tov home The Rossen home at 4

Schindler Court is also irregular in shape Ex 233 tr of April 9 2010 pp 99-105 The

site plan is inconsistent with the shapes of homes on the ground The Opposition

contends that the incorrect shapes of the homes and incorrect measurements on the site

plan undermine the reliability of the Petitioners claimed 300 foot setback measurements

Mr Hankinson disputed the Opposition contention as a revised measurement

shows that the setback is maintained The Lev-To house is setback 304 to 310 feet

The Rossen house is setback 308 to 310 feet5 Mr Hankinson concedes that KCI failed

to include the diameter of the pole in the measurements and this omission was a

mistake tr April 8 2010 p 99-105 lines 15-17 He testified that the tower 300 foot

setback moved away from the Gervase house tr April 8 2010 p 91 lines 13-23

However the site plan does not bear this out Ex 217 (c)

Mr Hankinson stated that in his opinion the new landscape plan Ex 207 is fully

adequate to screen the compound from the surrounding community There is no

5 This testimony does not foreclose the possibility that incorrect depiction of house footprints could mean that homes are within the prohibited setback area Also the witness failed todisclose the incorrect measurements on his direct examination

S-2709 Page 17

alternative location on the site less visible The only other place is the northeast corner

and topography and trees make it difficult to construct in this area

Brian Morgan works in field of landscape architecture and is project manager for

KCI He described changes in the site plan The gate was shifted north and some

screening materials were added Eight foster holly trees were added along with a honey

locust along the east side of the access road to offer additional screening between the

public road and tower The height of the plantings will be 12 to 14 feet with 2 12 to 3

inch calipers The face of the compound will be screened with a spread of plant heights

and intervals

Mr Morgan indicated that the landscape plan Ex 217 (i) shows that screening

will be closer to Schindler Dr The landscape contractor who plants the trees will be

responsible for a one year commitment for watering and maintenance see plan note

Ex 217 (i) which requires plant material to be guaranteed for one field growing season

After that the contract requires maintenance Mulch is used for watering and weed

control The fence is 30 feet long The height of Foster holly trees at installation will be

6 to 8 feet with 18 to 24 inches in spread After 5 years the height will be 12 to 20 feet

and 4 to 6 feet in spread After 10 years the height will be 15 to 25 feet with 6 to 8 feet

in spread He indicated that two trees near the street would be deciduous as well as

four trees on the west side of the compound No trees will be removed Indeed eight

new trees will be added to the project

Mr Morgan indicated that the lighting plan reflects no glare past property lines

Photo-metrics include perimeter fencing The lights will be set at 6 feet Ex 171(m)

Illumination on the ground will recede substantially before it gets to perimeter fencing

S-2709 Page 18

Mr Morgan conceded that there is a six foot difference between the old site

plan and the new one Compare Ex 171(p) and Ex 1 71 (c ) The northwest property

line was at 495 and is now 490 The west property line was 269 and is now 267 The

southeast property line was 31 feet and is now 45 feet The Northeast property line was

249 and is now 243 tr April 8 2010 pp 86-87

B MONTGOMERY COUNTY DPS

Hearing Examiner Carrier requested that DPS assist in the measurement of the

300 foot setback of the tower from nearby homes

Ehsan Motazedi is the manager of the site plan enforcement section He

testified that the site plan provides the most accurate measurement and more so than

field measurements since site plan measurements are validated by an engineer and are

the preferred approach The site plan is a legal document and it is accepted as such

DPS on occasion performs measurements and has field equipment for this purpose A

land survey is considered the most accurate form of measurement

Thomas Carlin works in the section and was involved in the measurement

efforts The field measurements were conducted on a cloudy day in January 2010 and

the foliage was low He and another DPS staffer measured from the proposed location

of the tower to each house He used a hand held laser device and measured from the

dead center of the tower pole to each house He determined that some houses were at

the edge of the 300 foot setback area

Mr Carlin was questioned by the parties He used the site plan to determine

the location of the tower He did not measure the perimeter of the cell tower or

determine its diameter He conceded that consideration of the diameter would have

changed his measurements See transcript of March 9 2010 hearing p 182 Indeed

S-2709 Page 19

he conceded that using the dead center point can result in the pole being actually less

than 300 feet from 911 Schindler Dr

C COMMUNITY OPPOSITION CASE IN CHIEF

Emma Stelle is a resident of 912 Schindler Drive She opposes the proposed

use with the tower on the north side The tower will have a significant and adverse

visual impact on the community For example her home lies in a direct line of sight to

the proposed facility Her home rests at an elevation of 3485 feet above sea level

(asl) Elevation of the area means that 6 rooms in her home will experience visual

intrusion from the facility including her bedroom

Mr Hankinson challenged the correctness of this testimony by pointing out that

the 8 foot fence would block any view to her bedroom However Ms Stelle contended

that she would be able to see beyond the fence The fence is 8 feet tall and the

elevation of her home is 3485 at ground level Her bedroom is higher than the fence

The Opposition submitted an analysis that supports the view that the fence will not

visually screen equipment in the compound Ex 172 (o) paragraph 1 Ms Stelle s

testimony is credible Indeed Mr Hankinson conceded that he did not study elevations

outside the public right of way

Ms Stelle pointed out that the Petitioners initially proposed a compound 50 feet

by 50 feet but now contends that it has made the project smaller with 30 feet by 30 feet

size However this supposed reduction is illusory as the project will likely revert to its

original size to accommodate two more carriers co-located at the site

Ms Stelle indicated that the FHA considers cell phone towers to be hazards and

nuisances This is a real detriment to the neighborhood as it means that mortgages for

S-2709 Page 20

property next to cell phone towers are impacted She considers the Petitioners evidence

confusing and unresponsive

Ms Stelle witnessed an event that occurred on Friday March 12 2010 She was

looking out the front window of her home on Schindler Dr and saw a man in the parking

lot It was a cloudy windy and rainy day At 418 pm She heard a noise and saw a

man pounding a stake into a grass strip between the sidewalk and street He was

driving a KCI van She asked what he was doing He responded that he was taking

measurements of the West Hillandale Swim Club He said that he took measurements

two years ago for all towers Because the new school was built he was asked to take

measurements in light of the recent school construction She went back home and

observed his activities He drove the van over the parking lot and eventually parked in

the middle of the lot about 439 pm He parked and sat in the van for a time At 441

pm he set up a tri-pod and a large umbrella He then set up another tri-pod At 456

pm the umbrella was caught by the wind and knocked over the tri-pods The man got

out of the van and reset the tripods and umbrella At 510 pm he was adjusting the

tripod and umbrella when two people approached him At 553 pm it was getting dark

and the man left She believes the man did not treat the equipment to the high

standards of KCI and she questioned the reliability of the survey

Gretchen Gervase is a resident of 911 Schindler Dr Her family uses the nearby

swimming pool almost daily She is concerned about the financial status of the swimming

pool club but the tower is not the answer As a direct neighbor of the pool she is

concerned about safety visual impact and economic impact of the proposed tower

Ms Gervace pointed out that ENCELL installs the system monitors it and can

go to the site The Sentinel facility will indicate whether there are defects or the system

S-2709 Page 21

is over extended She is concerned about radio frequency radiation and the fall zone

which is only 39 feet and can impact the baby pool people who walk the existing path

and children sledding on pool hill A fall of the tower could reach these areas

Ms Gervase indicated that the tower will be unsightly for anyone travelling along

Schindler Dr She will have a direct view of the proposed facility It will be visible

through the school yard and higher elevations in the area

Ms Gervase contended that potential family members will not be interested in

joining a swim club with a cell tower especially if they have young children She believes

the tower will lower property values and cited expert testimony submitted at a January 4th

2008 hearing in the same case

Ms Gervase concluded that the tower should be relocated in back of the trees

The Petitioners failed to show cost estimates and terrain data to support their claim that

relocation would be impractical A tower that ranges in diameter from 3 frac12 to 2 frac12 feet from

base to top is not a flag pole The Petitioners failed to stake out the center of the tower

Ms Gervase criticized Mr Hankinson s testimony about the Oakview Pool site

The pool had ground access point but it does not have that access today The site is

less wooded with no clearing and more level An old photograph shows the character of

the Oakview pool Ex 181

Doris Stelle is a resident of 1008 Devere Dr There have been changes in the

character of the neighborhood since the Petitioners efforts began that make denial of

the special exception request more compelling According to MNCPPC data the school

site has 98 acres 44 acres of which were forested Only 082 wooded acres were

preserved The school is larger than the old school with 640 students compared to 340

It has parking for 85 cars and 8 bus bays

S-2709 Page 22

Ms Stelle testified that the neighborhood is becoming more denuded of trees

Eighty trees have been removed by Montgomery County but only 13 replacement trees

have been planted There has been a 20 loss of trees along Schindler Dr

Replacement trees tend to be lower in height so as not to conflict with utility lines

Significant trees have been removed from the neighborhood with the construction of the

Crestview School Two White Oaks trees of large caliper were lost Forty large

specimen trees were removed at 50 loss of this type of tree The loss of these trees

will make the proposed cell phone tower more visible and intrusive for the neighborhood

Ms Stelle contended that against this background the Petitioners proposal to

screen adjacent equipment compound is clearly inadequate The Petitioners should

revise its landscape plan to provide more trees6 A commitment to maintain and replace

dead trees by a certified arborist or licensed tree professional should be included as a

condition There is a need for clear conditions

Susan Present lives at 1000 LaGrande Ave Silver Spring and close to

Schindler Drive She is concerned with battery safety as battery failure could produce

an explosion The reduction of batteries and the use of ENCELL Sentinel are hazard

mitigation measures that should be condition of the use of lead acid batteries because of

their hazards Robert Taylor s report Ex 159 (f) is supported by expert evidence see

Ex 248 (a) and (b) Ex 249 and 249 (a) She noted that Montgomery County has no

operational enforcement Consequently the petition needs to be deferred

Ms Present concluded that the Petitioners evidence is unclear as to whether 4

or 8 batteries will be used on the site Claims of need for more power supply are not

6 Aside from the small number of trees to be planted the Opposition also raised concerns about the foster s holly trees having poisonous berries to which the Petitioners did not respondSeveral publications describe the characteristics of the tree but none include any mention ofpoisonous berries The Opposition needs better evidence to establish its point

S-2709 Page 23

supported by the evidence

Ms Present addressed the Settlement Agreement between the County and T-

Mobil Ex 254 There is an exposure of consequence to accommodate Verizon or

Sprint The Petitioners have not sought waivers on co-location If they got a waiver it

would reduce the need for height based on Petitioners intention to host two co-locators

If not in the rear yard compound it would be an accessory structure An eight foot tall

fence is prohibited in rear and side yards where the height limit is 65 feet Ex 256 (DPS

interpretation) If the fence is reduced in height it is not accessory Petitioner has

presented unreliable evidence on the issue of maintenance She believes that the

burden of maintenance enforcement will fall on the community

Ms Present contended that the evidence is misleading about visual impact given

the pyramidal shape of the tower and holly trees Petitioners were expected to provide

written information about visual impact behind the pool Petitioners reason for locating

the tower has more to do with financial considerations and inconvenience to T-Mobil

rather than adverse impact on the surrounding community She also testified about the

elevation of the area The elevation behind the pool is 360 feet The elevation of the

proposed location of the tower is a 351 feet

Ms Present addressed the fall area A wider monopole will cause greater

impact The Planning Board usually requires 12 feet side and rear yard space for

elementary school Cresthaven occupies 988 acres She also testified that the zoning

ordinance is to protect inhabitants of the County and Petitioner is not an inhabitant

Richard Present is the husband of Ms Present and resides at the same

address He wrote a letter on the blockage of the path from school Ex 158 Path is

widely used by adult community as well as school children He indicated that the path

S-2709 Page 24

from Schindler Court is not maintained and school does not want students to use it

because it is steep and winding and is sometimes covered with leaves and other debris

Using the path would be risky

D PETITIONERS REBUTTAL

Attorney Edward Donohue delivered some rebuttal comments7 The loss of

property values is not an issue raised by the Board of Appeals in its remand order

Moreover the Petitioners presented evidence on January 4 before the remand order

through the testimony of real estate expert Oakleigh Thornton who provided an analysis

Ex 38 (b) which demonstrates that property values will not be reduced by a cell tower in

this area

IV FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS

The report and recommendation of June 2 2008 contains detailed findings of fact

and conclusions This supplemental report is only intended to update the record and

provide findings and conclusions pertaining to the remand order In a few cases this

report will provide findings of fact and conclusions that differ from those provided by

Hearing Examiner Carrier The later hearings presented evidence that the Hearing

Examiner Carrier did not have available when she issued her June 2nd report and

recommendation Our ultimate conclusions are identical that is the Petitioners have not

satisfied its burdens of proof and persuasion

A BACKGROUND

Hearing Examiner Carrier defined the relevant neighborhood in her June 2

report page 12 and it is bounded by Northwest Branch Park on the west Edelbut Drive

7 Maryland Courts have approved Attorney testimony in administrative hearings

S-2709 Page 25

and McCeney Avenue on the north New Hampshire Avenue and the east and Devere

Drive and a line extending from it on the south This neighborhood will be adopted for

this analysis

The neighborhood is developed with well maintained single family detached

homes and several institutional uses including the Cresthaven Elementary School which

borders the site to the east and the Francis Scott Key Middle School located west of

the site beyond homes that front on Schindler Drive and face the site The

neighborhood contains a substantial tree cover but this cover has been eroded by a

significant drop in replacement trees by the County and the school system In addition

many of the trees are deciduous and only provide a tree cover for part of the year A

vicinity map that depicts the area is reproduced below

S-2709 Page 26

The site which is home to a community swimming club was proposed to be

initially redeveloped with a single 120 feet tall monopole and a 50 x 50 foot storage

compound surrounded by an 8 foot board on board fence The north side of the site is

covered by a heavy growth of trees Following the hearing the Petitioners revised the

site plan to reduce the size of the compound to 30 x 30 feet and add eight new trees to

better screen the south and west sides of the compound However T-Mobile s lease

with the West Hillandale Swim Club allows for a compound of 50 x 50 feet for future co-

location of two other carriers if needed Both the swim club and the T-Mobile will occupy

parts of the site for their different uses The Petitioners also seek a 79 foot waiver of the

setback adjacent to the elementary school

B NEED FOR CELL TOWER

A propagation map shows the gaps in cell phone coverage in the area The

Tower Committee determined that this deficiency could only be rectified with additional

coverage The Planning Board and the Board of Appeals did not consider need an issue

at this juncture since other organizations have found any need factor to be satisfied

There is a need for the facility in this area of the county The Tower Committee

and the MNCPPC both indicated the need for the facility Dropped calls have increased

and 911 calls are at risk The monopole is designed to withstand 90 mph winds If the

pole should break during a storm only the top 3925 feet will drop within a designated

fall area The Cresthaven School is 135 feet from the Tower Although the Opposition

raised need as a pre-remand issue the evidence about need is largely uncontested at

this point in the process



S-2709 Page 27



to a point that threatens the 911 emergency communications system Mr Chaney s

testimony on this issue was credible and the record supports an affirmative finding on

this issue Hearing Examiner Carrier found in favor of the need issue and her rationale

is persuasive

C PETITIONER S CREDIBILITY PROBLEM

All witnesses testified under oath which included a promise to tell the truth the

whole truth and nothing but the truth Perjury includes false or incomplete testimony

that conceals damaging facts

Between the March 9 and April 8 hearings TCI discovered its measurements

were incorrect KCI developed a new site plan that moved the tower at least 2 feet in a

northeast direction so that all residential houses were presumably outside the 300 feet

setback requirement In addition the property lines were revised in the new site plan

and some were changed as much as six feet

At the April 8 2010 Hearing the Petitioners key witness James Clayton

Hankinson withheld important information Mr Hankinson failed to disclose changes in

measurements and movement of the tower during his direct examination when he

addressed changes between the two site plans This action was not disclosed to the

Opposition the Hearing Examiner or T-Mobile s Attorney Instead he remained silent on

the issue until he was questioned by the Opposition representative Susan Present and

Hearing Examiner Carrier This examination is set out in detail on the following pages

from the transcript of the hearing

S-2709 Page 28

Ms Carrier I m a little bit confused because in your testimony this morning whatI jotted down was that you said further survey work had been performed and hadverified the minimum 300-foot distance from outside of the pole to all offsitedwellings but then just a moment ago you said that the only building that wasactually measured in March of this year was the school So which of those amI missing something It sounds inconsistent

Mr Hankinson All offsite dwellings had been actually field surveyedMs Carrier At some other time in another year Is that what you meanMr Hankinson Yes ma am

Ms Carrier Go ahead So what was done- you re earlier statement that therecent survey work verified the minimum 300 distance was that inaccurate orwas it intended to refer to earlier survey work and I misunderstoodMr Hankinson It was intended to refer to earlier survey work that was actualfield survey of the of the building cornersMs Carrier Okay So you re telling me that at some other point in time therewas an actual survey doneMr Hankinson Yes ma amMs Carrier Where someone measured physical distance from the building towhere the outside of the pole would beMr Hankinson Yes ma amMs Carrier Okay And did they do that in a way that was similar to what wasdescribed by the gentlemen from our Department of Permitting Services with alaser beam kind of thing do you knowMr Hankinson I can t I don t know

[Recess taken and cross examination resumed]

Ms Present What happens to the field measurements that KCI takes afterthey re takenMr Hankinson They are downloaded into an electronic fileMs Present And are they maintainedMr Hankinson Yes Ma amMs Present And would you explain the process by which aerial photos aretaken and measurements are producedMr Hankinson We use the aerial photo as a to show them we gather the photo off of we got it off line The measurements to the closest houses were not usedfrom the aerial photos They were actual survey data Ms Present I m sorry That wasn t clear Could you explain that further Theaerial photo that you just included as part of Exhibit 217 that was not a photo that KCI took itself That was something you purchasedMr Hankinson Yes ma am

Ms Carrier That was for illustrative purposes then

Ms Carrier Or for measurement purposesMr Hankinson It was scaled as best possible to show the alternate site locationexhibitMs Present Okay And when was it purchased Do you knowMr Hankinson File created 3102010

S-2709 Page 29

Ms Present You said that the site was not re-measured the property lines were not re-measured is that correctMr Hankinson CorrectMs Present So if the property lines were not re-measured how come you havedifferent measurements on your most recent site plan for property linemeasurementMs Carrier Do you mean compared to the previous site planMs Present Compared to the one that was submitted in October There s adifference of about six feetMs Carrier Would you like to see that Mr HankinsonMr Hankinson Yes ma amMs Carrier Do you know the exhibit numberMs Present Yes It s 271 ( c ) verses Exhibit 171 (p) Ms Present So the former northeast property line was 495 and now it s 490The west property line was 269 and now it s 267 Southeast property line 31feet now it s 45 feet And the northwest property line 249 now it s 243Mr Hankinson To meet the 300 foot setback from the survey building cornersthe pole was shifted slightlyMs Present But the pole is consistent at its GPS location in both both siteplansMs Carrier Where is the GPS location numberMs Present It s in the site notesMs Carrier OhMr Hankinson The reason the then that needs to be updated To meet all300-foot setbacks from surveyed building corner the pole moved slightly whichwould account for the different measurements for the property linesMs Carrier When did you move the pole slightlyMr Hankinson In between prior to this submissionMs Carrier Do you mean between the last hearing and today Mr Hankinson Yes ma amMs Carrier How come you didn t say that in your direct testimony Youexplained all the changes You did not say the pole moved slightly Is there areasonMr Hankinson It just moved a little bitMs Carrier It just means that you know I sent DPS out to measure from a polenow you ve moved the pole so I m not sure quite what to do with that And youalready told me that you did not re-measure the distances from the pole to thehouses so how did you know that you needed to move the pole to get the 300feet if you didn t premeasured the distance from the pole to the housesMr Hankinson Because based off of the surveyed building corners from fieldsurveyMs Carrier From some previous surveyMr Hankinson Yes ma am That certified surveyor the 300 is maintained for allbuildings or for --Ms Carrier So it sounds like you discovered between last hearing and this onethat your previous that the pole was at least 300 feet from all the houses waswrong and therefore you because you checked the survey data and so youmoved the pole to make it workMr Hankinson Yes ma am Yes ma am

S-2709 Page 30

Ms Carrier Okay You know Mr Donohue are you aware that all thistranspiredMr Donohue No ma amMs Carrier You ve got to tell your lawyer when something like that happensbecause it effects your credibility that this is only coming out because MsPresent saw it I couldn t see it because I was given tiny little plans

[Tr of April 8 2010 hearing pp 82-88]

The DPS testimony first raised the possibility that the Petitioners site plan may

be in error and the record does not clearly reflect whether or not nearby homes fall

inside or outside the 300 foot setback restriction DPS used the location of the tower as

a point of measurement However DPS did not factor in the diameter of the tower which

is essential to a correct measurement Mr Hankinson conceded that this failure to

consider the diameter was also a mistake on the part of KCI

The Petitioners also concede that the tower was moved two feet in a northeast

direction to make the setback evaluation turn out correct Before the tower move

Petitioners site plan reflected the Gervase home at the edge of the setback area or 300

feet Ex 155 (a) After the move a newer site plan still showed the Gervase home at

300 feet Ex 217 (c) He testified that the 300 foot setback moved away from the

Gervase house bringing it further away from the 300 foot setback tr April 8 2020 p 91

lines 13-23 The site plan does not bear this testimony out Ex 217 (c) which shows the

Gervase house remaining at the edge of the 300 foot setback mark and not moved at all

Mr Hankinson provided conflicting testimony about the diameter of the tower

His first diameter was over 3 feet and later he testified that it was less than 2 feet The

record shows that the diameter is over 3 feet How this diameter relates to the

movement of the tower and the setback of the homes is unclear He did not know the

GPS coordinates of the tower However the inclusion of the diameter does not change

the measured distance of the Gervase home Why not

S-2709 Page 31

Mr Hankinson s testimony was flawed because he did not disclose on direct

examination errors made in the KCI measurements and covered it up until he was

questioned by Ms Pleasant and the Hearing Examiner Carrier The truth finally came

out but at a cost to the Petitioners credibility

Other testimony by the same witness claims that an inconsistency in the all

important 300 foot setback requirement was simply a mistake If it was a mistake the

Petitioner did not correct it with a new version of the aerial photo See Tr of March 9

2010 hearing pp 246-249 Moreover Mr Hankinson passed off as a mistake the clear

inconsistency between the aerial photo which clearly shows two homes within the

setback area Ex 155 (d) and the site plan which shows the same homes outside the

setback area Mr Hankinson blamed the discrepancy on the use of two different scales

These two incidents leave the reader befuddled as to the reliability of the

Petitioners evidence and the weight it should receive if any Mistakes were clearly

made in the Petitioners presentation regardless of motive Looking at the mistakes in

their best light that they were simply mistakes and not motivated by any attempt to

deceive they still pose a credibility problem for the Petitioners

How can the Board make an affirmative determination on the project s impact on

the community with the conflict over whether the Petitioners measurements are correct

Mistakes can be forgiven but their consequences remain and involve loss of credibility

and reliability The Petitioners seek approval based on a sloppy presentation by

inexperienced or uninformed witnesses

D BOARD S REQUIREMENTS

The Board set out nine topics and six subtopics to be addressed by the evidence

1 Visual Impact on Neighborhood

S-2709 Page 32

The Board s order of Remand makes the impact on the neighborhood an issue of

first priority that the support structure as proposed on the site will minimize its visual

impact to the greatest degree reasonably possible

The project s impact on the neighborhood is one of the most disputed issues of

this case The Petitioners evidence on the issue of the 300 foot setback is shaky given

that key witnesses were not prepared to testify about the details of the project The

project manager Marianna Crampton was unable to testify because she was on

maternity leave The replacement witnesses only worked on the project for brief times

and were unresponsive to many of the questions about the project

In support of the Petitioners existing tall trees and vegetation are located on the

north and will be retained All antennas and cable lines will be concealed inside a 120

foot high pole designed to look like a flag pole although it will fly no flag An 8 foot tall

board on board fence will surround the compound that will include the tower and facility

equipment Moreover the Hearing Examiner Carrier found in favor of the Petitioners

She found that the visual impact was an inherent factor that did not justify denial of the

Petition However her support was qualified and she did not have the current state of

the record to review I find that the proposed location constitutes a non-inherent factor

given the unique topography proximity to dense residential and educational uses the

potentially hazardous materials on site and the unique factors at this location which are

described below

The Opposition presented a well coordinated case for non-compliance with the

visual impact requirement The most contested part of the case involves the 300 foot

setback requirements which has a direct impact on the visual intrusion into neighboring

properties

S-2709 Page 33

The Opposition contends that the incorrect shapes of the homes and incorrect

measurements on the site plan undermine the reliability of the Petitioners 300 foot

setback measurements Mr Hankinson was only involved with the project for 3 weeks

According to Hearing Examiner Carrier he is an earnest but inexperienced witness

before a County land use proceeding He conceded that he did not know the diameter

of the tower or its GPS location and the diameter is critical to proper measurement of

setbacks He also conceded that several homes have rectangular shape on the site

plan but are really irregular in shape Ex 231 photo of Lev-Tov home tr April 9 2020

p 97 and the Rossen home at 4 Schindler Court is also irregular in shape Ex 233 tr

of April 9 2010 pp 99-105

His testimony raises some unanswered questions The one constant in most of

the measurements shows the Gervase home located at exactly 300 feet from the tower

This measurement is constant in the early site plan Ex 155 (a) and the later site plan

Ex 217 (c) which occurred after the movement of the tower two feet to the northeast

Yet the later site plan should reflect the two foot movement of the tower on the Gervase

house and it does not There is a mistake here and not just the absence of diameter

measurements

Another unique factor deals with the variable elevation of the area Emma Stelle

is a resident of 912 Schindler Drive Her home lies in a direct line of sight with the

proposed facility and has a higher elevation that exposes six rooms in her home to

adverse visual intrusion The visual intrusion into her home is clear because her home

is higher than the fence and she will be able to see tower and the equipment compound

Her testimony is credible

There are also gaps in the Petitioners landscaping and screening which make

S-2709 Page 34

the proposed facility visible The tower will be visible for people passing through the

school yard and at higher elevations in the area One particular gap is the unregulated

gate which can be open at any time throughout work at the compound When the gate is

open there will be no screening of the compound on site equipment and the tower All

will be visible to homes along Schindler Road This gap could be closed by a condition

that limits to opening to the gate to certain times or situations However despite this gap

in the project the Petitioners have not proposed any regulation

Another unique factor deals with the reduced size of the compound While the

Petitioners have made the project smaller with a 30 by 30 foot compound this supposed

reduction is illusory It is clear that the Petitioners plan to add two more carriers to the

tower which will expand the use of the compound and make it necessary to expand it

The evidence shows that the 120 feet tower and the equipment compound will not be

adequately screened from adjacent homes

Another unique factor is the change in the character of the neighborhood since

the project was first proposed This change makes denial of the special exception more

compelling The neighborhood has become denuded of trees Eighty trees have been

removed but only thirteen replacement trees have been planted Replacement trees are

lower in height so as not to conflict with utility lines Significant trees have been

removed from the neighborhood with the construction of Crestview School Two White

Oak trees of large caliper were lost at the school site Forty large specimen trees were

removed at 50 loss of this type of tree The loss of these trees will make the proposed

cell phone tower more visible and intrusive for the neighborhood

The Opposition presented a much stronger case for a determination that the

project will have an adverse visual impact on the neighborhood The Opposition s case

S-2709 Page 35

is assisted in part by the confusing testimony of the Petitioners case on this issue On

balance the Petitioners simply failed to meet its burden of proof and persuasion on this

issue The most recent site plan is reproduced below Another document reproduced

on the following page illustrates the shape of the homes in the area to compare with the

site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety

Petitioners must submit written information sufficient to show that the proposed

array of back up batteries will not pose a safety risk to the community that justifies denial

of the petition

The safety risk relates to the lead acid sealed batteries proposed for use at the

site The proposal currently includes 16 batteries but could increase to up to 48 if

additional carriers are permitted to use the site These batteries include hazardous

materials and present a risk of fire explosion dangerous vapors and other hazards if not

carefully monitored When these batteries develop resistance while they are on constant

float the condition will generate internal heat and pressure buildup

An internal control system known as Sentinel which is manufactured by

ENCELL is presented as T-Mobile s silver bullet Sentinel is claimed to maintain the

safety of the system and extend the life of the batteries The Sentinel system monitors

the batteries determines their state of health and extends the life of the battery because

it protects it from constant charge and reduces heat within the system It is claimed that

the Sentinel system should eliminate all the current known factors that cause safety

issues The system has only been used in Richmond Virginia

The Opposition cross examination brought out the following points ENCELL

does not have a contract with T-Mobile and it is only under consideration as a contractor

ENCELL has only installed its product at one location in the region Richmond Virginia

ENCELL does not have a web site or written evaluations of the product including its

Richmond facility Sentinel has only been in production for one year

The entire case for the safety of battery storage rests on the Sentinel system

The Opposition established that T-Mobile the operator of the project does not have a

S-2709 Page 38

contract with ENCELL the provider of the Sentinel systems Moreover the facts also

show that Sentinel has only been installed at one location in Richmond Virginia and

there are unanswered questions about its reliability and endurance One of Petitioners

two expert witnesses about Sentinel s virtues is an employee of the organization and his

testimony is hardly an unbiased viewpoint The other expert is a swim club board

member who is hardly a disinterested party as the swim club will benefit financially from

approval of the special exception Their testimony is informative but cannot be given full

weight

The knowledge of the potential contractor is thin The only one facility is cited as

a customer and Sentinel does not have much of a track record ENCELL is in its infancy

and this in itself presents another risk to the community In this situation it seems better

to err on the side of caution when dealing with a apparatus that can explode if improperly

operated or monitored At the very least more information is needed about ENCELL

and its operation

Battery failure could produce serious hazards People at risk include adults and

children who use a nearby path as well as those who use the adjacent children s pool

and elementary school The reduction of batteries and the use of ENCELL Sentinel are

hazard mitigation measures that must be a condition of the use of lead acid battery

because of their hazards Hearing Examiner Carrier found this issue to be grounds for

denial She found battery stand-by use to be non-inherent and a basis for denial Her

basis for this conclusion is still valid Consequently the petition needs to be deferred

until all safety concerns are satisfied

3 Smaller Equipment Compound

S-2709 Page 39

Petitioners must submit a persuasive explanation of why the equipment

compound cannot be further reduced in size to lessen its visual impact

The Petitioners revised the application in a manner that reduces the size of the

compound and provides for additional screening The equipment storage compound

was reduced in size form from 35 by 45 feet to 30 by 30 feet as shown on the revised

site plan Ex 204

This reduction may be illusory given the likelihood that two additional carriers will

require the compound to be expanded The impact of an enlarged facility on the

community could be severe considering the uneven presentation of the Petitioners

proposal This expanded use will cause a serious intrusion into a stable community If

the use is expanded to include more communications facilities it will add greater impact

than the current proposal

4 Landscape Plan

Petitioners must submit a revised Landscape Plan that includes the following

features

a The gate is located on the Ruppert Road side of the compound

Mr Chaney addressed the suggestion to relocate the facility to the rear of the

site He responded that the location of the tower northeast of the pool would require

considerable ground disturbance and removal of trees Grading alone would level out

the area and remove natural screening of topography and vegetation He noted that the

equipment compound was reduced in size form from 35 by 45 feet to 30 by 30 feet as

shown on a recent version of the site plan Ex 204 For these reasons he concluded

S-2709 Page 40

that relocation is not a viable option because it would increase visual impact of the

proposed facility

Mr Chaney explained the revision of the site plan does not propose to relocate

the gate to transition to the Ruppert Road side of the compound as suggested by the

Board because large trees would be lost if gate is moved there He indicated that the

gate will be constructed of the same materials as the fence that is an 8 foot high board

on board A 12 foot wide and 20 to 25 feet long gravel path will extend from the paved

parking lot to the gate to permit vehicular access to the tower and compound

Mr Chaney indicated that T-Mobile will commit to adjust the location of the

compound fence and landscaping needed to preserve community access to the path

adjacent to the site and the Cresthaven Elementary School However he does not

believe it is appropriate to encourage people to go through the site The proposed

compound does not block access to the school or pool School was designed so there is

no cut-through access to the school He indicated that T-Mobile will commit to adjust the

location of the compound fence and landscaping needed to preserve community access

to the path adjacent to the site and the Cresthaven Elementary School

The proposed alternative location within this site would cause significant ground


natural screening of topography and vegetation For these reasons use of alternative

site seems not a viable option because it would result in loss of trees and increase visual

impact of the community On balance the Petitioners proposal appears to be the best

option

b Additional plantings

S-2709 Page 41

The additional planting must be adequate to improve the visual impact on the

neighborhood The petitioner also proposes to plant 8 trees instead of the original

proposal of 5 trees The use of Foster s Hollies was praised by several witnesses as

appropriate

The Opposition raised some concern about the berries on the tree as poisonous

However literature submitted about the tree does not mention poisonous berries and the

claim is unsubstantiated as a threat see Ex238 and 258 If it is a problem the type of

tree can be changed

c Specification of plantings

The Board required specified minimum height at planting and expected maximum

height and spread after two five and ten years The Petitioners provided the specific

information required

Eight foster hollies were added along with a honey locust along the east side of

the access road to offer additional screening between the public road and tower The

height of Foster Hollies will be 6 to 8 feet at installation with 18 to 24 inch spread After

five years the height will be 12 to 20 feet and 4 to 6 feet in spread After ten years the

height will be 15 to 25 feet with 6 to 8 feet in spread Two trees near the street are

deciduous as well as four trees on the west side of the compound No trees will be

removed

d Commitment on tree maintenance

T-Mobile s made a commitment to provide for the maintenance of these trees

and replacements for any that die for as long as the tower or the equipment compound

is located on the site

S-2709 Page 42

The Petitioners commit to the required maintenance

e Commitment of professional tree work

T-Mobile is required to provide a commitment to ensure that all tree-related work

is performed by a certified arborist or licensed tree professional

The Petitioners have committed to provide the required personnel

f T-Mobile s commitment to adjust the location of the compound

Fence and landscaping as needed to preserve community access to the path

currently used by children walking to the adjacent school

T-Mobile made a commitment to adjust the location and compound fence and

landscaping to preserve community access to the path currently used by children

walking to the adjacent school

However T-Mobile does not believe it is appropriate to encourage people to go

through the site Nevertheless the Petitioner will abide by the Board s decision The

proposed compound does not block access to the school or pool School was designed

to so there is no cut-through access to the school

5 Floodlights illumination and glare

Petitioners must submit evidence to show that any illumination or glare would

not exceed lighting levels of 01 foot-candles along the side and rear lot lines

The Petitioners indicated that the lighting will comply with all requirements The

lights will be located facing down and at cabinets mounted six feet in air The lights will

only be turned on in the event of a nighttime emergency The lights will not cause glare

and will not go off the property The light will measure 071 foot candle at the property

line The lighting plan reflects no glare past property lines Flood lights would be

S-2709 Page 43

monitored at 7 feet Lighting will be set at 6 feet Ex 171(m) Illumination on ground will

recede substantially before it gets to perimeter fencing

6 Inconsistent Setback8

Petitioners must submit written information sufficient to explain the inconsistency

between the site plan Ex 155(a) and the aerial photograph Ex 155 (d) and to

demonstrate that the 300-setback requirement would be satisfied

The Petitioners submission was insufficient to comply with this requirement The

exhibits are in clear conflict The site plan Ex 155 (a) (dated January 15 2008) depicts

a site plan where the adjacent homes are shown to be outside of a 300 foot radius of the

tower On the other hand the aerial photo Ex 155 (d) (dated January 15 2008) depicts

the setback area as going through parts of two homes the Gervase home and the

Rossen home The Petitioners prepared both exhibits and submitted them as exhibits in

support of their case

The Petitioners now claim that the site plan is correct but the aerial photo is

incorrect because it reflects a different scale than used for the site plan If the aerial

contained a mistake the Petitioners did not file a corrected copy and allowed the

allegedly incorrect version to remain in the record If the site plan was correct why

move the tower This is another example of the inconsistent manner this contested

case was handled by the Petitioners Petitioners have not shown with credible evidence

that the 300-setback requirement is satisfied in its entirety see Section IV C of this

report for a discussion of Petitioners credibility problems

8 For this paragraph 6 paragraph 9 and the demeanor of Mr Hankinson I consulted withFranccediloise M Carrier former Hearing Examiner However the finding of facts and conclusionsare my own and if errors or omissions are present I bear sole responsibility for them

S-2709 Page 44

7 County s Hazardous Material Storage

The Petitioners are on the record that they have complied with Montgomery

County s Hazardous Material Storage All T-Mobile facilities are compliant with

Executive Regulation 1703

8 Battery Degradation

The Sentinel system appears to remove the batteries from constant float So far

Petitioners claims that Sentinel would reduce degradation internal resistance and

remove risk of failure is not substantiated and appears to be premature pending further

evidence of the contractor s experience

Normally batteries degrade in 2 to 3 years However under the Sentinel system

battery life span is predicted to be two or three times normal Sentinel itself has a life

span of 12 years

Like battery safety this issue is dependent upon the reliability of the contractor

ENCELL and its products There is a need for more information about this product

9 Applicability of County Swimming pool standards

The Board asks the Hearing Examiner to address specific standards in Code for

community swimming pools or explain her position that she and the Board are not

required to consider them Ex 170 January 8 2009

The co-location of a swimming pool and a cell phone tower is dependent on the

manner both operate Co-location seems permissible where two or more special

exceptions are authorized for the same property so long as they do not conflict with each

other both are jointly compatible with the community and each one can satisfy the

separate requirements of the code This does not mean that the cell tower must satisfy

S-2709 Page 45

the standards for a swimming pool so long as the communications tower does not

interfere with the other use or impact in a negative way on the public health safety and

general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS

While the Petitioners have met some the standards of the Board they have not

satisfied others including visual impact battery safety the smaller equipment compound

battery degradation and the 300 foot setback requirement Consequently the Petition

does not merit approval

The Petitioners have presented testimony and evidence that is either not credible

or so inconsistent to be unpersuasive Do they deserve another chance to obtain

approval The current record is muddled with inconsistent evidence It must be noted

that the Petitioners have had two bites at the apple forcing the Opposition to expend

time and money opposing the Petitioners There comes a time in the process when it is

necessary to advise the Petitioners that a deficient application cannot be granted

Despite the extended time and opportunity to correct the deficiencies in the application

the Petitioners have not met their burdens of proof and persuasion and the petition must

be denied on the basis of the current state of the record

The Hearing Examiner s June 2 2008 report and recommendation contain

sufficient basis to deny the Petition notwithstanding the changes to the site plan This

supplemental report simply adds to the justification for denial

The Opposition has presented more evidence that the neighborhood s property

values will be adversely impacted by the presence of a cell tower in the neighborhood

The FHA has determined as a matter of policy that the presence of cell tower in a

neighborhood can in certain circumstances have a negative impact on the sale of

S-2709 Page 46

housing If the case is remanded again this new evidence should be considered given

the need review the impact of this federal policy on local land use decisions Moreover

the footprint of the new school is not in the record and it should be added so the request

to reduce the setback can be properly evaluated Lastly the Petitioners should add

conditions to safeguard the community that includes adding regulations about how long

the gate may be opened and make clear that the compound will not be expanded

Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions and a thorough review of the

entire record I recommend that Petition No S-2709 which requests a special exception

under the R-90 Zone for a telecommunications facility to be constructed on property

located at 915 Schindler Drive Silver Spring Maryland be denied and that the related

request to modify the special exception for the Hillandale Swim Club also be denied

Dated October 28 2010

Respectfully Submitted

Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment
S-2709HearingExaminerTierneyReportpdf

8 In each of the above situations affected residents helped the County avert a problem by sharing information However individual residentsrsquo ability to participate in the public process could be stifled through the batching of petitions In Montgomery County applications exceeding certain zoning standards or proposing siting in residential or other sensitive areas require a regulatory review The regulatory review is a quasi-judicial process and provides affected individuals the right to participate in a hearing pro se If petitions were batched for the regulatory review the interests of individuals would likely be comingled and grouped As a result the current County regulations and State law could be interpreted to require full representation in the review only by legal counsel48 An FCC ruling that would institute batching for applications is likely to have the effect (perhaps in violation of residentsrsquo civil rights) of financially limiting andor excluding affected individualsrsquo participation in the LGU process To be clear this regulatory review process is only required in specified areas or circumstances But it is the sole public review process in which residents are afforded the opportunity to participate

All applications go through the Countyrsquos technical review process as an initial review For many DAS network applications batching the reviews of technical applications can be ideal because the proposed nodesrsquo RF technical data are interdependent49 In fact Montgomery County already conducts batch-type technical reviews of many wireless applications But to be clear the evaluation of batched technical applications appear to be no less resource-intense than separate applications The expense for applications should not be expected to differ with batching So far the fees for these technical application reviews have remained constant since 2002 even though related County operating expenses residential property taxes and many other fees have increased since then Arguably all application expenses should be covered by their user-applicants not by other tax payers Technical reviews of applications take place promptly They consist of an engineering review and report and are followed by a review and vote by the Countyrsquos (Telecommunications) Transmission Facilities Communications Group (Tower Committee) which meets monthly The Tower Committee does not entertain comment or participation from affected residents or the public at-large at its meetings However the wireless industry is provided a forum at these meetings to present its issues concerns and perspectives50

Over the years the County Council has repeatedly expedited the approvals of wireless franchise agreements to occupy the Countyrsquos PROWs by passing resolutions on the Councilrsquos consent agendas and waiving committee reviews and public hearings51 The approved franchise agreements set

48 OZAH notifies parties of interest that ldquoIn compliance with Maryland requirements regarding the practice of law groups or associations must be represented by counsel unless their witnesses are members of the group or association and will offer testimony in narrative form (ie there is no need for an attorney to conduct a direct examination) [at a OZAH hearing]rdquo Further details are available at OZAHrsquos FAQ page wwwmontgomerycountymdgovOZAHResourcesFilespdfFAQABOUTHEARINGSpdf 49 See supra note 22 JD MC Cluskey ~ at min 003500 ndash 003600 50 J Sartucci Parentsrsquo Coalition of Montgomery County Maryland Blog Breaking Neelsville PTSA Says They Have No Position On Cell Tower Contradicts MCPS Assertion to Tower Committee (Jan 12 2017) httpparentscoalitionmcblogspotcom201701breaking-neelsville-ptsa-says-they-havehtml 51 See for example Resolution 18-292 adopted October 20 2015 without a public hearing approving the Mobilitie LLC franchise agreement and Resolution 16-1484 adopted September 28 2010 without a public hearing approving the New Paths Networks LLC franchise agreement and recognizing therein the merger in progress that would make New Paths Networks LLC a ldquowholly-owned subsidiary of Crown Castle Solutions Corprdquo

9

franchise fees but those franchise fees are neither collected from nor paid by the wireless PROW occupants52 In a further twist of irony the County Code requires the abutting residential property owners to provide general maintenance of the PROW grounds53 So to recap the wireless hosts and their tenants reap substantial financial benefit from the PROWs that they occupy54 the County does not collect franchise fees (but certainly collects taxes) from the wireless PROW occupants and the abutting residential property owners who suffer the visual economic and sometimes other adverse impacts from the wireless facility sitings receive no compensation and are required by law to maintain the (more cluttered) abutting PROW grounds55

Montgomery County has been very responsive to the wireless industryrsquos needs for fast-tracking In the past in response to FCC rules and orders and yielding to the industry concerns Montgomery County has several times amended its Code In 2010 the Council passed legislation to streamline the regulatory and approval process for cell towers co-locations and modifications This legislation reduced the regulatory review tiers from three to two and condensed the approval process for new facilities modifications and co-locations to comply with the ldquoShot-Clockrdquo Rule In 2014 it passed a new zoning ordinance that further revisedstreamlined the regulatory review and approval process for all cell towers Among other things with the three-tier regulatory process having previously been reduced to two tiers in 2010 it eliminated one of the remaining review tiers thereby making the regulatory process a single-tier process Also in 2014 it passed special legislation for ldquosmall cellrdquo antennas This legislation defined ldquosmall cellrdquo antennas and authorized ldquosmall cellrdquo installations on existing structures in all residential zones ldquoby rightrdquo which therefore bypassed the public notice and hearing review process In 2016 forecasting the spike in wireless applications the Council passed an FY17 budget to add funding for hoursstaff to accommodate timely reviews and decisions of the anticipated larger volume of new petitions for approvals of wireless installations In 2016 Councilmembers proposed further ldquosmall cellrdquo legislation which had been promoted by the wireless industry56 However when the legislation encountered significant citizen resistance that legislation was tabled so that the County could collaborate with local residents and organizations to embark on administrative and legislative refinements and yet accommodate the uptick in application volume and ensure timely reviews57

In October 2016 related to the aforementioned proposed ldquosmall cellrdquo legislation the County hosted a Community Forum There the industry representatives agreed to pause their application ldquoshot clocksrdquo while the County explored alternative administrative and legislative solutions for PROW applications58 Also at the forum noting Montgomery Countyrsquos close geographic proximity to the US Capitol

52 See supra note 22M Herrera ~at min 001000 ndash 011200 53 See Montgomery County Code Chapter 49 Sections 17 and 33 54 Dolman amp Seymour Valuation of TransportationCommunication Corridors Appraisal J 509 515 (Oct 1978) ldquoThe value of the land in this case lies not in the size of the land but in its ability to connect two points These transportation corridors while small enjoy special value characteristicsrdquo 55 M Fischler The New York Timescom A Pushback Against Cell Towers (Aug29 2010) available at httpwwwnytimescom20100829realestate29Lizohtml 56 See supra note 22 G Leventhal ~ at min 002019 ndash 002345 57 Id 58 Montgomery County Community Forum on Small Cell Towers (October 26 2016) available at httpmontgomerycountymdgranicuscomMediaPlayerphpview_id=136ampclip_id=12500 see industry applicantspanelists ~ at min 014800 ndash 015100

10

attendees astutely speculated that residents likely to be adversely impacted by proposed PROW small

cell installations would probably include FCC staff their loved ones perhaps even some Commissioners

and their families too As a result for the sake of the nation for the sake of MontgomeFy County and

also for the sake of the Commissions own I urge the FCC to please consider the updated corrected

and more detailed information presented herein Do not be hoodwinked bythe specious claims of the

wireless indusJryThe expansive FCC action that has been requested by the wireless industry is not

warranted at this time Such action would be precipitous and would unnecessarily interfere with

states and LGUs powers to provide those within their jurisdictions regulatory processes that are fair

and open and to protect public safety and welfare

FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd

Silver Sprihg MD 20903

24A33 L9L55

sue p rese ntATco m cast net

2 consequences3 ldquoIn the 2007 Malibu Canyon Fire three utility poles snapped because they had been overloaded by the installation of a DAS system by NextG Networks [the neutral wireless host that now does business under the name Crown Castle] ldquoThe result was a fire that burned 3836 acres 36 vehicles and 14 structures (including historically significant structures) and damaged others (It also caused injuries to three firefighters)rdquo4 Investigations revealed that NextG had placed attachments on poles in direct contradiction to the safety directives that had specifically denied it permission to do so NextGrsquos attachments had overloaded poles in violation of applicable safety codes and rules and it had ldquoinstalled facilities including a fiber optic cable that were not safe in light of the condition of the pole and known local conditions (the Santa Ana winds)rdquo5

The neutral wireless hosts that are competing for wireless broadband supremacy in Montgomery Countyrsquos public rights-of-way (PROWs) are Crown Castle and Mobilitie Despite findings of the NextGCrown Castle safety violations that led to the aforementioned Malibu Canyon Fire and the resulting catastrophic damages and injuries recently it has been Mobilitie that has drawn media attention and public indignation for violations of the law and other highly questionable activities Mobilitie has been masquerading as a state-regulated utility in at least 18 states apparently to access PROWs without obtaining government permits and to elude public noticecomplaints6 Despite its charades Mobilitie was caught and cited for constructing its facilities in PROWS in my own state of Maryland and the neighboring state of Virginia without having the (safety and other) state andor LGU permits7 As the FCC has long been aware ldquo[n]ot only are unauthorized attachments a hidden cost [to state-regulated utilities and the LGUs] in the literal sense in terms of lost revenue but they as well as non-compliant attachments create additional load on the poles which can (and has) caused poles to snap Conversely for attachers they save money both in terms of rent and often avoided make readyrdquo8 ldquoUnauthorized and non-compliant attachments threaten the safety of linemen as well as

3 Comments of the City of Alexandria et al WT Docket No 13-238 at 14 ndash 15 (Feb 3 2014) Referencing M Caskey The Malibu Times CPUC Approves $515-Million Malibu Canyon Fire Settlement (Sept 24 2013) available at httpwwwmalibutimescomnewsarticle_3d62067a-2175-11e3-86b6-001a4bcf887ahtml 4 Id 5 See supra note 3 at 15 Referencing Decision Conditionally Approving the NextG Settlement Agreement Investigation on the Commissionrsquos Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Southern California Edison Company Cellco Partnership LLP dba Verizon Wireless Sprint Communications Company LP NextG Networks of California Inc and Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba ATampT California and ATampT Mobility LLC Regarding the Utility Facilities and the Canyon Fire in Malibu of October 2007 Investigation 09-01-018 (Sept 19 2013) at 10 available at httpdocscpuccagovPublishedDocsPublishedG000M077K05977059441PDF 6 See for example 1) M DeGrasse RCR Wireless News Mobilitie to Increase Transparency for Jurisdictions (May 27 2016) available at httpwwwrcrwirelesscom20160527network-infrastructuremobilitie-utility-tag4 2) Inside Towers Minnesota Utilities Warn Mobilitie About Misrepresentation (copy2017) available at httpsinsidetowerscomcell-tower-news-minnesota-utilities-warn-mobilitie-misrepresentation and 3) J Kramer Dr Jonathan L Kramer on Wireless Siting and Law Blog Let the California Utility Pole Authority Games Begin (Feb5 2016) available at httpwirelessbloglaw20160205cupa_joe 7 Id and also see for example A) Wireless Estimator One Company Fined for Not Getting a Small Cell Permit Another for Not Permitting Inspectors (Apr 4 2016) available at httpwirelessestimatorcomarticles2016one-company-fined-for-not-getting-a-small-cell-permit-another-for-not-permitting-inspectors and B) M Smith WTOP Cell Sites Installed Without Pr William Co Approval Received VDOTrsquos OK (Dec 16 2016) available at httpwtopcomprince-william-county201612cell-service-antennae-utility-poles-test-prince-william-county 8 Utilities Telecom Council Pole Attachments A White Paper at 20 (Oct 31 2007) available at httpsecfsapifccgovfile6519864708pdf

3
















Sue
File Attachment




Sue
File Attachment
















IN THE MATTER OF












S-2709

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Summary 3






2 Battery Safety 37









S-2709 Page 3

I SUMMARY
























S-2709 Page 4

























S-2709 Page 5





















S-2709 Page 6


















S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


3
















Sue
File Attachment




Sue
File Attachment
















IN THE MATTER OF












S-2709 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Summary 3






2 Battery Safety 37









S-2709

I SUMMARY
























S-2709 Page 4

























S-2709 Page 5





















S-2709 Page 6


















S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


Sue
File Attachment




Sue
File Attachment
















IN THE MATTER OF












S-2709 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Summary 3






2 Battery Safety 37









S-2709 Page 3

I SUMMARY
























S-2709

























S-2709 Page 5





















S-2709 Page 6


















S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55





Sue
File Attachment
















IN THE MATTER OF












S-2709 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Summary 3






2 Battery Safety 37









S-2709 Page 3

I SUMMARY
























S-2709 Page 4

























S-2709





















S-2709 Page 6


















S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


Sue
File Attachment
















IN THE MATTER OF












S-2709 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Summary 3






2 Battery Safety 37









S-2709 Page 3

I SUMMARY
























S-2709 Page 4

























S-2709 Page 5





















S-2709


















S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55

















IN THE MATTER OF












S-2709 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Summary 3






2 Battery Safety 37









S-2709 Page 3

I SUMMARY
























S-2709 Page 4

























S-2709 Page 5





















S-2709 Page 6


















S-2709

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55















IN THE MATTER OF












S-2709 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Summary 3






2 Battery Safety 37









S-2709 Page 3

I SUMMARY
























S-2709 Page 4

























S-2709 Page 5





















S-2709 Page 6


















S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55













IN THE MATTER OF












S-2709 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Summary 3






2 Battery Safety 37









S-2709 Page 3

I SUMMARY
























S-2709 Page 4

























S-2709 Page 5





















S-2709 Page 6


















S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55





IN THE MATTER OF












S-2709 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Summary 3






2 Battery Safety 37









S-2709 Page 3

I SUMMARY
























S-2709 Page 4

























S-2709 Page 5





















S-2709 Page 6


















S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Summary 3






2 Battery Safety 37









S-2709 Page 3

I SUMMARY
























S-2709 Page 4

























S-2709 Page 5





















S-2709 Page 6


















S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 3

I SUMMARY
























S-2709 Page 4

























S-2709 Page 5





















S-2709 Page 6


















S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 4

























S-2709 Page 5





















S-2709 Page 6


















S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 5





















S-2709 Page 6


















S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 6


















S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 7

























S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 8
























S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 9

























S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 10







for 5 or 6 carriers

















S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 11
























S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 12

























S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 13

























S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 14

























S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 15



















leave




S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 16
























S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 17









and intervals















S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 18

























S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 19
























S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 20

























S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 21

























S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 22
























S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 23

























S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 24










this area










A BACKGROUND




S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 25



this analysis









S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 26

























S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 27






is persuasive


















S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 28








S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 29


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 30























S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 31

























S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 32




















described below




properties

S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 33










of April 9 2010 pp 99-105







measurements








S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 34

























S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 35





site plan

S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 36

S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 37

2 Battery Safety



of the petition





















S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 38








weight






and its operation










S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 39






site plan Ex 204







4 Landscape Plan


features








S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 40


proposed facility




















option


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 41




appropriate




tree can be changed











removed





S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 42
























S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 43























S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 44












span of 12 years












S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 45



general welfare

IV RECOMMENDATIONS





















S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


S-2709 Page 46














Philip J Tierney

Hearing Examiner

Sue
File Attachment





9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55






9





10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


10










FS n -z ( ( a-tuL-4

1000 La Grande Rd


24A33 L9L55


comments of sue present · charades, mobilitie was caught and cited for constructing its facilities...

Documents